Support NeoGAF

[Stinkles]

And for the record, I am basically a fan of Jesus' alleged testimony. But not a fan of the fact that it's ignored ferociously and destructively by its proponents.

 

[jaxword]

And for the record, I am basically a fan of Jesus' alleged testimony. But not a fan of the fact that it's ignored ferociously and destructively by its proponents.

Me too. I was raised Catholic but, after years of hypocrisy, I just can't morally be part of organized religion anymore. I still support the ideals of God and Jesus, such as peace and understanding, but we all know those don't really exist.

 

[jdogmoney]

I'm having an interesting debate with this guy I know.

Is the Christian god, as depicted in the Bible, just (as in fair)?

This is working from an assumption that the Bible is true (I don't think it is, but I extrapolated for the sake of argument).

What does GAF think?

 

[Mgoblue201]

I'm having an interesting debate with this guy I know.

Is the Christian god, as depicted in the Bible, just (as in fair)?

This is working from an assumption that the Bible is true (I don't think it is, but I extrapolated for the sake of argument).

What does GAF think?

I have a few arguments:

1. I would argue that there is no method by which one can measure god's objective standards. Christians usually don't have a problem with the mass killings in the Bible and yet bristle at the thought of anyone carrying out god's judgment in the modern world. But what's the difference? How do they know? By what grounds can they object?

2. Fundamentally, the entire idea of inherited sin is unfair. What choice do I have in the matter? Even if one was a Calvanist, then god is basically setting the rules in a game that most people cannot possibly win, making him culpable.

3. This was kind of argued on this very page, but if god can know the future, then he knows every single effect that his actions will have. Therefore, he is also culpable for anything that he does. Some might be saved by his actions. Does he have a duty to give everybody the same chance? What constitutes fairness here?

4. The entire idea that people have a sober, completely rational choice is kind of laughable. Billy Graham would probably be a mullah if he was born in Iran just by the statistical likelihood of it all. People are swayed heavily by their cognitive biases, including their cultural biases, even Christians. When someone says that he was saved by the grace of god, what he means is that he was lucky to be born into a nation that is predominantly Christian. If he was an ancient Mayan, then he never would have even heard about Christianity. That does not sound like a fair universe to me.

 

[DanteFox]

I'm having an interesting debate with this guy I know.

Is the Christian god, as depicted in the Bible, just (as in fair)?

This is working from an assumption that the Bible is true (I don't think it is, but I extrapolated for the sake of argument).

What does GAF think?

Lol if the christian god exists, then, by definition, he is perfectly just. not much to debate there...

 

[Mgoblue201]

Lol if the christian god exists, then, by definition, he is perfectly just. not much to debate there...

Perfect justice is an incoherent thing. You might as well ask whether there is a perfect flavor. If perfection constitutes punishing someone for what they eat, then there is no justice.

 

[jaxword]

I'm having an interesting debate with this guy I know.

Is the Christian god, as depicted in the Bible, just (as in fair)?

This is working from an assumption that the Bible is true (I don't think it is, but I extrapolated for the sake of argument).

What does GAF think?

Take a lawyer's perspective:

Can a contract be legal if it's signed under duress?

Extrapolated to religion:

Can God's Justice be fair if the receiving end has no choice but to accept?

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

Lol if the christian god exists, then, by definition, he is perfectly just. not much to debate there...

No. God says and does a lot of things in the Bible, and we can judge them according to our own moral standards. And I think it's pretty clear that any reasonable moral being would find at least some of God's actions or words in the Bible reprehensible. Inherited sin is one good example just mentioned.

 

[DanteFox]

Perfect justice is an incoherent thing. You might as well ask whether there is a perfect flavor. If perfection constitutes punishing someone for what they eat, then there is no justice.

This is working from an assumption that the Bible is true

.

 

[Stinkles]

Take a lawyer's perspective:

Can a contract be legal if it's signed under duress?

Extrapolated to religion:

Can God's Justice be fair if the receiving end has no choice but to accept?

Blessed are the lawmakers, because they inserted language that specifically blesses them for making laws complicated enough that they themselves are required to interpret them.

 

[Mgoblue201]

.

I interpreted his words to mean that they are still debating god's existence. In other words, given that we assume the bible to be taken at its word, does the bible treat god as a contradiction of what he is purported to be, or does he make sense within that context? You're saying that by assuming the bible, we assume god's existence. That would be true if we're treating the bible itself as proof of god. But we don't necessarily have to do that. We could entertain the bible as fact but then use its contents to judge whether any of it actually makes any sense.

 

[Dever]

Lol if the christian god exists, then, by definition, he is perfectly just. not much to debate there...

If God existed and the Bible was true, I would find him to be utterly immoral. He could of course claim to be the very definition of perfect justice, but I would have to disagree.

 

[JGS]

I typed up a long argument, but I've deleted in favour of something that gets to the crux of the issue;

I believe that religious morality only works because of the arbitrary punishment/reward component as dictated by religion.

Otherwise morality would be derived naturally, on the basis of real rather than imagined consequences.


What you've done is create a mess of ideas in two short sentences.

Implying that I'm talking about biblical morality, rather than the morality you derive from your religion.

And also conflating the idea of religious morality with all morality.

Your answer was not the crux of the issue. You basically said the moral guidelines are arbitrary and used for punisahment reward. I disagreed and was told I was making a strarman argument. How so unless the only way not to was to agree with you?

Further, my question was to see what the heck it is I'm missing with only one person up to that time giving a specific answer.

My religion is Bible based, so you are talking about both morals in my little world so it shouldn't have been that messy. Further instead of accusing me of strawman arguments, it wold have been more polite to address it the way you just did.

 

[JGS]

No. God says and does a lot of things in the Bible, and we can judge them according to our own moral standards. And I think it's pretty clear that any reasonable moral being would find at least some of God's actions or words in the Bible reprehensible. Inherited sin is one good example just mentioned.

This is true. We can judge actions of God by our own moral standards. In fact, he will give a listening ear to the matter. In the end they just don't mean anything. I'll use Old Testament examples since that's supposed to be the mean God (Which I never got, but anyway)

When Sodom & Gomorrah were about to be destroyed, Abraham begged and pleaded that the right thing to do would be to spare the city if just a few people were found there. God said OK and Abraham couldn't find anyone. God was correct and the cities go boom.

If God finds it just to kill someone for murder or have them run like crazy to a City of Refuge for manslaughter, the guilty person can fuss and fume, but under the Law, they were going to pay the same price.

When King David committed adultery, killed the woman's husband, & then tried to cover it up, he was eligible for the death penalty. His repentance spared (Thus justice is linked with mercy) him although at a price since no none gets off scott free for those kind of offenses.

When Jonah was told to tell Ninevites they were going to be destroyed for being wicked, Jonah went there against his will, told them what was gong to happen, they repented, and they were spared. God chnaged his mind.

I bring up these examples not to say whether the decision were right or wrong, but to say that the person's view of the matter didn't matter. God controlled the situation. That's how justice works when the legal system isn't manipulated and I can understand why some think it stinks even if it doesn't matter.

 

[Pandaman]

My understanding of the Christian faith is that God doesn't "send you to hell." He asks if you want a relationship with him. If you decide no, or don't believe in his existence, then you are separate from him by your own choosing. That is the essence of being in hell - separated from God. I think the belief is not that he wants you to be there or to send you there, but the contrary. Its your choice.

so where does the 'gnashing of teeth' part come into this point of view?

 

[jaxword]

When Sodom & Gomorrah were about to be destroyed, Abraham begged and pleaded that the right thing to do would be to spare the city if just a few people were found there. God said OK and Abraham couldn't find anyone. God was correct and the cities go boom.

Don't omit the part where the population was entirely homosexual.

 

[JGS]

Don't omit the part where the population was entirely homosexual.

The entire population wasn't homosexual. In fact, it's likely that most were not. It was just a huge city that had no interest in God and performed wicked acts.

The context was clearly a large group of men wanting to rape a couple of strangers in town. Homosexual probably, but the primary reason for that group being blinded had to do with rape. The primary reason for the city's death was being wicked all the way around.

 

[Dever]

When King David committed adultery, killed the woman's husband, & then tried to cover it up, he was eligible for the death penalty. His repentance spared (Thus justice is linked with mercy) him although at a price since no none gets off scott free for those kind of offenses.

You mean God striking David's innocent child with an illness that lasted a week and then killed him while David begged God to spare him? Perfect justice, folks.

 

[JGS]

You mean God striking David's innocent child with an illness that lasted a week and then killed him while David begged God to spare him? Perfect justice, folks.

Yep, that would be the one. Not to mention his other son trying to get control of the empire. Messy stuff.

 

[Dever]

Yep, that would be the one. Not to mention his other son trying to get control of the empire. Messy stuff.

I mean there's obviously kind of a moral dilemma here: Is it perfectly just for God to kill an innocent as punishment for the deeds of the guilty? Call me crazy, but I don't think it is. If a human judge acquitted someone on death row and gave the death penalty to his 2-year old, everyone would think he was insane. God does it, he's merciful. There's gotta be some cognitive dissonance going on here. I don't really see any other excuse for God's goodness other than saying that whatever God does, it is defined as good, no matter how wretched it may seem to us.

 

[half a moon]

I mean there's obviously kind of a moral dilemma here: Is it perfectly just for God to kill an innocent as punishment for the deeds of the guilty? Call me crazy, but I don't think it is. If a human judge acquitted someone on death row and gave the death penalty to his 2-year old, everyone would think he was insane. God does it, he's merciful. There's gotta be some cognitive dissonance going on here. I don't really see any other excuse for God's goodness other than saying that whatever God does, it is defined as good, no matter how wretched it may seem to us.

This story shows how he uses a sinful past to advantage and that forgiveness and judgment are separate. The sin and all sins have a negative effect. We don't live in a utopia. He expects humans to sin and has consequences for them. But, after forgiveness, he finds a way to use it to his advantage. In this case, the successor Solomon.

It's based basic logic really. If I got a woman to cheat on her husband with me, he could go crazy and kill himself. But then me and her could have a child that does something important in the world.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

So, I can give you a list and you'll address it?

1. The immaculate conception and the link between Jesus and King David. Do you believe it was Mary who passed down the 'genes'? Why do none of the lineage lists in the bible address this, if that is the case, and wouldn't it be the only time that blood lineage is legitimized through a woman? How does this... hiccup sit with you?

2. Why do you disregard the evidence behind evolution, or more specifically human evolution? You say things like 'it is far from fact' - when in reality, it is as close to being a fact as anything really needs to be, there is no dissent in this in the scientific community and and many different fields all converge to agree that 'naturalistic evolution' occurs (whether or not God started it, doesn't really matter in this instance). Regardless of all this, you still ignore it because the Bible doesn't explicitly say it occurs this way? Essentially meaning that no matter what anyone says, no matter how much evidence is compiled, you will believe what you will believe - which I guess is your prerogative, but it screams of self-delusion to be honest.

I guess I'll leave it at two for now, no point in making a list so long it is daunting just to read, let alone respond to.

1. One of the most prominent explanations by conservative biblical scholars (and to me, it seems the most likely) is that Matthew is looking at Jesus' royal succession, in other words, the succession that proves Davidic lineage, while Luke is looking at the actual physical descent of Joseph. This would make sense, considering that Matthew is writing his gospel to a predominantly Jewish audience, who would have thought that Davidic lineage for the Messiah was extremely important (and indeed it was). It would also make sense for Luke to focus on the physical descent of Joseph, given that he was writing to Theophilus and it is clear through various places in Luke's gospel that it was written primarily for Gentiles.

Concerning the "genes," it would seem from the biblical accounts that the royal succession goes through Joseph rather than Mary. And when it comes to the virgin birth ("The Immaculate Conception" is the Catholic doctrine that Mary was conceived by virgin birth, which is not something I believe) of Jesus, the Bible does not go into the specifics of how it was achieved genetically. But, why should it? Are you expecting a document written nearly 2,000 years ago to explain a virgin birth with terms apropos to what we know of genetics today?

2. Claiming there is no dissent regarding evolution in the scientific community is dishonest. There is dissent. But given the materialistic and naturalistic presuppositions the majority of scientists hold, they suppress dissent and attempt to make it look like scientists who bring up objections to Darwinism are hacks. Why do you think that rejection of evolution is a scientific career killer? Scientists who object to Darwinism are silenced and there is plenty of evidence out there that indicates this.

And charges of self-delusion are unhelpful. I could argue the same about you, that your refusal to accept that the Word of God was written by God and is therefore inerrant and infallible clouds your judgment regarding everything within your materialistic worldview. Delusion is in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Kinitari]

Oh god, this is going to take too long, so forgive me if I cut some things out - if I leave anything out you want to discuss, please just refer to it in another post.

No but speaking for myself and being a nuanced in my own ways about the information I know of religion I don't take a generalized concept with many applications and then basically present a situation of it from a more modern and narrow view as an absolute.

I can appreciate your position, and your methodology, but it does not mean I have to adopt it. I was discussing a particular concept with someone, if they did not want to discuss that particular concept with me, they did not have to - it does not mean that I have to present my discussion in any particular way you deem fit.

Paragraph 2.

Unfortunately you are instilling what you believe should be discussed into what I was discussing. If you want to discuss other concepts of hell and god and then talk about my level of knowledge on those matters please do. I made points specifically discussing the broad concept of hell (the fire and brimstone kind), the concept of god (the one of Abraham that is omnipotent and omniscient) and of free will when it comes to religion, and why I do not believe it exists. If you want to argue with me, do not say "That is a narrow minded view, be more open minded" - tell me why the concepts I discussed are faulted.

Obviously reality answered your statement but you proposed an example which I think life has already laid out a simple truth on.

I am sorry but that is just a cheap response to my statement, if it is a response at all. If you have a problem with what I said, don't just say something that essentially boils down to "What you said is wrong" - tell me why it is wrong.

When I did say the bible made free will?

I never said you did, I only pointed out that you were using the examples of free will in the Bible to highlight how free will exists, when I am trying to point out how such a concept contradicts the idea of an Omnipotent and Omniscient god. My whole point is to point out the inconsitancies in the Bible and the concepts they put forward, it does not mean that while I am discussing the Bible I have to take the examples given to me as fact or something. I really don't even understand what you mean there - that because I am using the Bible as an example, I have to take everything it says and agree with it all?

 

[Drastic]

so where does the 'gnashing of teeth' part come into this point of view?

Well, obviously it's not supposed to be a pleasant place to be. But I don't think the Christian faith belief is that God created a very bad place and desires to send people there.

 

[Kinitari]

Paragraph 1

I didn't so much care about the Luke and Matthew discrepencies, if someone else wants to tackle this they can, I just really am not interested in this part - but thanks for bringing that explanation to mind!

Concerning the "genes," it would seem from the biblical accounts that the royal succession goes through Joseph rather than Mary. And when it comes to the virgin birth ("The Immaculate Conception" is the Catholic doctrine that Mary was conceived by virgin birth, which is not something I believe) of Jesus, the Bible does not go into the specifics of how it was achieved genetically. But, why should it? Are you expecting a document written nearly 2,000 years ago to explain a virgin birth with terms apropos to what we know of genetics today?

First, thanks for clarifying the immaculate conception for me, I hear people make that mistake a lot!

Secondly... c'mon! Are you just ignoring that large hole? The line of David was clearly outlined from father to son - the blood of David is a term I think I have heard used (I will look it up in a bit) - and a large part of the Christians I have talked to have all made the assumption that Jesus has that blood - don't you think that is something that should have been clearly outlined in the Bible, and not something that is so easily outlined as an inconsistency?

2. Claiming there is no dissent regarding evolution in the scientific community is dishonest. There is dissent. But given the materialistic and naturalistic presuppositions the majority of scientists hold, they suppress dissent and attempt to make it look like scientists who bring up objections to Darwinism are hacks. Why do you think that rejection of evolution is a scientific career killer? Scientists who object to Darwinism are silenced and there is plenty of evidence out there that indicates this.

And charges of self-delusion are unhelpful. I could argue the same about you, that your refusal to accept that the Word of God was written by God and is therefore inerrant and infallible clouds your judgment regarding everything within your materialistic worldview. Delusion is in the eye of the beholder.

I don't want to get too heated, so I'll take back the 'self-delusion' comment (for now).

But firstly, of course those Scientists who deny evolution are killing their careers, it clearly points to someone who lets religion influence science, which should never ever ever happen. But if you can point to clear dissent that has been 'silenced' by the Scientific community for... what, bringing the truth of God to light? Then please do.

 

[Kinitari]

Well, obviously it's not supposed to be a pleasant place to be. But I don't think the Christian faith belief is that God created a very bad place and desires to send people there.

To avoid the wrath of LCGeek, let me preface this by saying I am currently discussing what concept of Hell and God I have to assume you are discussing, if you are discussing a different concept, please tell me and I will respond accordingly! In no way is this opinion a representation of my opinion of all religion, or all sects of Christianity!

Okay, so let me ask you (assuming you are a Christian, which I don't think you are?) - do you think God is all powerful? Powerful enough to prevent people from going to hell, or to remove hell all together? Basically what I am asking is, do you think that Hell is there because God let's it stay there, or because he does not have the ability to remove it from existence?

Secondly, do you think that God would send those that are Good people to hell, if they did not accept him as their own personal God?

 

[Dabookerman]

The reason why scientists who dispute Evolution get their careers killed is simply because they never bring any meaningful evidence. That's what I read anyway.

 

[JGS]

I mean there's obviously kind of a moral dilemma here: Is it perfectly just for God to kill an innocent as punishment for the deeds of the guilty? Call me crazy, but I don't think it is. If a human judge acquitted someone on death row and gave the death penalty to his 2-year old, everyone would think he was insane. God does it, he's merciful. There's gotta be some cognitive dissonance going on here. I don't really see any other excuse for God's goodness other than saying that whatever God does, it is defined as good, no matter how wretched it may seem to us.

Exactly.

It is very easy to disagree with some of God's decisions because as humans we flat out don't get some stuff. We do it all the time. That does not mean he wasn't right about it and this is one of the better examples of something to get mad at God about even if the decision was justified.

We don't see the whole picture of how David's indiscretion/sin was messing up God's purpose. I already sound apologistic enough but the Bible is often not tied to just heaven as a reward (& certainly not eternal torment) as much as it is to the possible resurrection of the dead. So it's possible the innocent kid of a guilty king will show up again.

 

[Mumei]

Last night, I was listening to videos from one of the numerous people on Youtube who upload videos on the subject religion. This person says in his profile that he is a professor and university administrator of some sort. He is an atheist, and I've really been enjoying his videos. He's polite, well-spoken, and, most importantly, one of the video sets covers the subject of morality, which some of you have been starting to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HW96qmtDmUM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oef0fkGOnQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWt9EULIXMo

He later recants the last video (on his former belief that objective morality exists or is meaningful) and explains his new position, reasoning, and some personal motivations for his previous position:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsAXEocHRHQ

Oh, and perfectly fair warning: Yes, he's an atheist - but I don't think anything he says goes outside the realm of what is considered appropriate criticism in this topic.

2. Claiming there is no dissent regarding evolution in the scientific community is dishonest. There is dissent. But given the materialistic and naturalistic presuppositions the majority of scientists hold, they suppress dissent and attempt to make it look like scientists who bring up objections to Darwinism are hacks. Why do you think that rejection of evolution is a scientific career killer? Scientists who object to Darwinism are silenced and there is plenty of evidence out there that indicates this.

Oh, honestly.

Yes, there is dissent regarding evolution within the scientific community - I've heard of non-biologists occasionally making claims about why evolution can't or wouldn't work (that is swiftly swatted down by biologists who know what they're talking about, naturally). But dissent amongst people who actually study biology? I suppose that there might be a few people out there, but there is no meaningful (e.g. more than a few hacks) dissent about the paradigm itself. There is be dissent about process, speed, where one line splits off completely, where to place demarcations from different groups of animals, and so forth, but they all agree that evolution itself takes place.

Your complaint (observation?) about the materialistic and naturalistic presuppositions of science makes no sense; the only way that science works is if it is methodologically materialistic. Science cannot study anything beyond the natural world that we exist in, so obviously they need to do things from that perspective.

And I think that it is a career killer because it shows a complete lack of comprehension of the fundamentals of one's chosen career. And let's be fair - science has been hard on dissent that was later proven to be true. For instance, evolution itself or plate tectonics went against the prevailing views of the time, and have since been vindicated. Thus far, those who object to evolution have done absolutely nothing to provide evidence for their case. "Hack" is a perfectly appropriate word here.

 

[Peronthious]

Exactly.

It is very easy to disagree with some of God's decisions because as humans we flat out don't get some stuff. We do it all the time. That does not mean he wasn't right about it and this is one of the better examples of something to get mad at God about even if the decision was justified.

We don't see the whole picture of how David's indiscretion/sin was messing up God's purpose. I already sound apologistic enough but the Bible is often not tied to just heaven as a reward (& certainly not eternal torment) as much as it is to the possible resurrection of the dead. So it's possible the innocent kid of a guilty king will show up again.

If whatever God sees as good is good, no matter how bad and unjust it seems to us, how does this reconcile with universal morality? Surely what God sees as good would be part of this universal morality.

 

[Drastic]

To avoid the wrath of LCGeek, let me preface this by saying I am currently discussing what concept of Hell and God I have to assume you are discussing, if you are discussing a different concept, please tell me and I will respond accordingly! In no way is this opinion a representation of my opinion of all religion, or all sects of Christianity!

Okay, so let me ask you (assuming you are a Christian, which I don't think you are?) - do you think God is all powerful? Powerful enough to prevent people from going to hell, or to remove hell all together? Basically what I am asking is, do you think that Hell is there because God let's it stay there, or because he does not have the ability to remove it from existence?

Secondly, do you think that God would send those that are Good people to hell, if they did not accept him as their own personal God?

Assuming the worldview of Christianity (as I understand it):

The belief is God is all powerful.

I think hell is living or existing without a relationship with God. Assuming God exists and you have a choice to live in relationship with him or not. The choice of not is living in hell. So, it's not a "place" to go to, or to be sent to but rather a state of being that has some consequences. You either exist with him or without him.

So, someone "going to hell" is maybe more accurately, someone who decides not to accept god.

Could he choose to make you believe he exists? Sure, but he wants you to make the decision. For there to be no "hell" he would have to make everyone believe in him, without making a choice. So, he chooses that there be an option which is up to each individual.

For god to eliminate hell and keep everyone from experiencing it, there would be no free will or choice or independence. He could do this, but he chooses not to, so that people have the ability to choose themselves.

In this line of thinking, God doesn't "send" anyone anywhere. They make their choice and that determines where they will be.

 

[JGS]

If whatever God sees as good is good, no matter how bad and unjust it seems to us, how does this reconcile with universal morality? Surely what God sees as good would be part of this universal morality.

It would reconcile with universal morality especially if justice, mercy, & purpose are thrown in there too. However, you could look at it on the sole basis of the greater good argument.

The problem with universal morality is we still tweak it to our own personal perceptions/preferences. This is why it is usually better to have a higher standard to go off of at the risk of restricting some freedoms. This is for religious reasons or not.

Morality can be very relative. If a person who is either non-religious or doesn't believe in the Biblical God reads the passage, then there will never be any amount of reconciling that will justify the action. To them, God is wrong for killing a kid. In fact, for many believers in the Biblical God, they avoid passages like this because they can't reconcile it.

That does not mean that it isn't reconciled, just that we don't know how to balance it ourselves.

 

[Kinitari]

Assuming the worldview of Christianity (as I understand it):

The belief is God is all powerful.

I think hell is living or existing without a relationship with God. Assuming God exists and you have a choice to live in relationship with him or not. The choice of not is living in hell. So, it's not a "place" to go to, or to be sent to but rather a state of being that has some consequences. You either exist with him or without him.

So, someone "going to hell" is maybe more accurately, someone who decides not to accept god.

Could he choose to make you believe he exists? Sure, but he wants you to make the decision. For there to be no "hell" he would have to make everyone believe in him, without making a choice. So, he chooses that there be an option which is up to each individual.

For god to eliminate hell and keep everyone from experiencing it, there would be no free will or choice or independence. He could do this, but he chooses not to, so that people have the ability to choose themselves.

In this line of thinking, God doesn't "send" anyone anywhere. They make their choice and that determines where they will be.

I'll try to keep this simple so I'll break it down into three questions.

1. What is the version of hell you are discussing consist of? Eternal pain and anguish, fire and brimstone, all those things we hate in life and suffering? Or something else?

2. When do we have the opportunity to accept God? During our lives and the afterlife? Or just during our lives?

3. Why would the removal of hell remove our free will? It would remove the 'punishment' of not believing in God is all.

To me, it sounds like this argument is worded to prevent God from seeming like a cruel creature, he isn't actually sending you to hell, you're sending yourself to hell - all you need to do is accept him and you wont have to suffer (assuming your version of hell includes suffering). Why does God even require one to believe in him, what is it to him? He is a perfect all knowing all powerful being, if the creatures he has created to have 'free will' - something which seems very very essential to the Christian doctrine you mention - exercise their free will and cannot be brought to believe in God, when they die regardless of their goods or bads, is it not cruel that they are denied heaven?

 

[Shanadeus]

Assuming the worldview of Christianity (as I understand it):

The belief is God is all powerful.

I think hell is living or existing without a relationship with God. Assuming God exists and you have a choice to live in relationship with him or not. The choice of not is living in hell. So, it's not a "place" to go to, or to be sent to but rather a state of being that has some consequences. You either exist with him or without him.

So, someone "going to hell" is maybe more accurately, someone who decides not to accept god.

Could he choose to make you believe he exists? Sure, but he wants you to make the decision. For there to be no "hell" he would have to make everyone believe in him, without making a choice. So, he chooses that there be an option which is up to each individual.

For god to eliminate hell and keep everyone from experiencing it, there would be no free will or choice or independence. He could do this, but he chooses not to, so that people have the ability to choose themselves.

In this line of thinking, God doesn't "send" anyone anywhere. They make their choice and that determines where they will be.

Simple question then:

Where do souls come from?

 

[Beer Monkey]

Simple question then:

Where do souls come from?

The concept of a soul is predicated by some kind of faith. There is no evidence of a human soul. Belief in the human soul is like belief in God, it comes from faith.

It isn't required to believe in a soul to believe in God, but they typically go hand in hand.

 

[Herpes Reasons]

Simple question then:

Where do souls come from?

theres one definition of the word "soul" in the old testament. its not a "ghost" or paranormal entity. it simply means the conscious mind. maybe what you are asking is the "spirit"?
which means the "breath of life". but the problem is those two words are almost interchangeable in the old testament. (i.e., genesis, job.)
but to answer your question, it is answered in genesis. the breath of life (spirit) comes from YHWH.

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

you'll notice the spirit (breath of life) is distinct from a soul.

 

[jdogmoney]

Simple question then:

Where do souls come from?

A series of incredibly complex chemical reactions?

Also, obligatory: "How do you define souls?"

 

[Dabookerman]

Also depends what your interpretation of what a soul is, right?

 

[Shanadeus]

theres one definition of the word "soul" in the old testament. its not a "ghost" or paranormal entity. it simply means the conscious mind. maybe what you are asking is the "spirit"?
which means the "breath of life". but the problem is those two words are almost interchangeable in the old testament. (i.e., genesis, job.)
but to answer your question, it is answered in genesis. the breath of life (spirit) comes from YHWH.
you'll notice the spirit (breath of life) is distinct from a soul.

Then God would have known, before he even created Adam and Eve, that they would have eaten the forbidden fruit and get cast out of paradise. And he would know all the resultant offspring from the first couple, every single one of them being born as an indirect result of his creation of man and woman.
Now as he is omniscient, wouldn't he also know all men and women that would sin?
Before their "soul", or conscious mind, had even been formed.
And wouldn't he thus had the opportunity to create the first man and woman in a manner which instead would have resulted in all future descendants and human beings never sinning?

I'm merely arguing that free will is an illusion, whether you take a biblical approach or a scientific one. God has always known which men and women will chose not to believe in him; and as he created the universe with all the factors influencing a individual into believing or disbelieving he is also the indirect cause and creator of nonbelievers - which could have been prevented by creating the universe in a different way with a different set of factors.

 

[jdogmoney]

Could he choose to make you believe he exists? Sure, but he wants you to make the decision.

Again, you can't choose to believe. You form an opinion based on the evidence you see. A real choice would be God descending in a pillar of heavenly glory and saying unto all the nations, "Yea, I am real! ...Lookit."

Then, with a clear outline of the facts, humanity could make an honest choice.

If Hell is defined as merely a separation from God, pretty sure that's not that big a deal. I've lived on Earth for a while without God. If there is an afterlife (which I hope is not the case. Who wants to live forever?), I can be content without God for longer.

Also, if you define right as what God does, does that make it right for you to go out and sic a she-bear on children for making fun of someone's bald head? That's what God does, after all, and we should all want to be like God, right?

 

[Herpes Reasons]

Then God would have known, before he even created Adam and Eve, that they would have eaten the forbidden fruit and get cast out of paradise. And he would know all the resultant offspring from the first couple, every single one of them being born as an indirect result of his creation of man and woman.
Now as he is omniscient, wouldn't he also know all men and women that would sin?
Before their "soul", or conscious mind, had even been formed.
And wouldn't he thus had the opportunity to create the first man and woman in a manner which instead would have resulted in all future descendants and human beings never sinning?

It is a basic philosophical thought that God created humans because He wanted to be loved.
So God gave us the intelligence and the free will to love him or to reject him.
what is love is if you dont have a choice? Is it really love if you force your lover to stay with you?

I'm merely arguing that free will is an illusion, whether you take a biblical approach or a scientific one. God has always known which men and women will chose not to believe in him; and as he created the universe with all the factors influencing a individual into believing or disbelieving he is also the indirect cause and creator of nonbelievers - which could have been prevented by creating the universe in a different way with a different set of factors

i agree to an extent. we have free will, but i believe its limited. but recently i'm more inclined to think it is in fact an illusion.

 

[jdogmoney]

http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=866

If free will is an illusion, it's convincing enough not to matter in the slightest.

 

[Shanadeus]

http://www.qwantz.com/index.php?comic=866

If free will is an illusion, it's convincing enough not to matter in the slightest.

And it doesn't really matter, except when free will is used as an support of God's cruelness.

 

[DeusTrinitas]

I've been reading through much of this discussion on free will and rather than comment directly on items that have been said, I'll instead make a suggestion. For all involved in this discussion, it would be helpful to do some reading on the following: libertarian free will, compatibilism, determinism, and Molinism (middle knowledge). That would elevate the discussion considerably.

In addition, those of you involved in the soul discussion would benefit from reading on soul creationism, traducianism, and soul preexistence.

 

[JGS]

Now as he is omniscient, wouldn't he also know all men and women that would sin?

He could know that, but there would be know reason to exercise that ability

I guess it depends on how you view omniscience and whether or not God is so. God has the ability to know anything and everything, but that doesn't mean he can't turn it off or on. If omniscience means unable to foreknowldge off/on, then I would say he's not.

However, even if he were, that's not the same as destiny or a lack of free will which the Bible tells us specifically when that happens. He pretty much would still be allowing us to make the choices, just not intervening.

 

[Dever]

Exactly.

It is very easy to disagree with some of God's decisions because as humans we flat out don't get some stuff. We do it all the time. That does not mean he wasn't right about it and this is one of the better examples of something to get mad at God about even if the decision was justified.

So basically you're saying I should withhold judgement on God's moral character since I can't possibly know everything that was going on in the scenarios I find repugnant, right? He could be justified in killing David's kid, even though the reason is not specified in the story.

What's odd about these arguments is that the Bible never, ever recognizes the moral bankruptcy of God's actions and explains what greater purpose they serve. Like I've heard a christian say that God had some mysterious greater good in mind when he allowed Jephtha to give his daughter as a burnt offering. Well dang, couldn't God tell us what his ingenious plan was instead of just simply leaving us in the dark? Couldn't he even inform us that even though he is a loving god and despises human sacrifice, Jephtha's deed or the death of David's son was needed to serve a greater purpose? The Bible does not even recognize a need for any explanation. It's like you're asking me to blindly accept that a serial killer has justifiable reasons for the crimes he's committed, just because I can't possibly know that he doesn't.

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

Is it really love if you force your lover to stay with you?

Is it love if you bribe them?

 

[LCGeek]

I am sorry but that is just a cheap response to my statement, if it is a response at all. If you have a problem with what I said, don't just say something that essentially boils down to "What you said is wrong" - tell me why it is wrong.

It's not a cheap response because reality has left billions of people in the same situation if not a more harsh one than your example and people still choose not to be truly religious despite the all encompassing motivating fear factor of hell. Not all religions support yes some and a lot do but that doesn't somehow exclude very religious in which hell doesn't exist. My point was simple there was no "real issue" in the hypothetical considering people of religious faith have various choices with and without hell. I didn't cheap out of anything I simply said our actual world provides better insight to the statement without the need for doing what you did. Your comment was about religion and hell in general unless you want to reedit your comment on that.

I never said you did, I only pointed out that you were using the examples of free will in the Bible to highlight how free will exists, when I am trying to point out how such a concept contradicts the idea of an Omnipotent and Omniscient god. My whole point is to point out the inconsitancies in the Bible and the concepts they put forward, it does not mean that while I am discussing the Bible I have to take the examples given to me as fact or something. I really don't even understand what you mean there - that because I am using the Bible as an example, I have to take everything it says and agree with it all?

I don't because i don't see choice as anything more than that. All knowning and all powerful for one entity and only that entity doesn't somehow remove free will on other entities that it may created nor do I see freewilling undoing the two mentioned aspects of such a GOD. I don't see it like you choose to do so nor do others of the faith that's it.

There are plenty of things wrong and contradictory about the bible go ahead and rag on them. Yet if you present a concept usually it should be from perspective of how the concept has been applied to most of those of the faith not someone who doesn't practice it. To me I see it as danger to present a concept from an aspect it was never presented and then say it's wrong for the reasons you came up with.

This has nothing to do with fact at all. It has to do with how knock something from your perspective and think that believers see it the same way as you do when they clearly don't. Sorry from my view I don't imagine myself as god or supernatural figure and having their mythical abilities and then supposing from my own limited natural mindset what such beings would do in their situation since it's impossible for me to ever understand what a being like that would do in that situation. Not only is not realistic but you've opened a box anyone can interject the same kind of statements with the same validity after all it's a discussion on non existent things. You're equally asking me to accept your reasons for contradictions of the bible when I don't see them as that despite the fact I think a lot of it is utter garbage.

 

[Count Dookkake]

Hell is a gun pressed against your temple.

It has nothing to do with free will.

 

[JGS]

So basically you're saying I should withhold judgement on God's moral character since I can't possibly know everything that was going on in the scenarios I find repugnant, right? He could be justified in killing David's kid, even though the reason is not specified in the story.

No, well sort of. I'm saying the reasons usually become clear looking outside the particular passage. However, upon first reading, it's hard to get behind a God that would kill a kid. For someone who does not follow the Bible, that may never happen. For someone that does, it requires additonal reading/research. The Bible or particular verses cannot be read in a vacuum. The book, whether one feels it was divine or not, was put together to project an entire theme.

What's odd about these arguments is that the Bible never, ever recognizes the moral bankruptcy of God's actions and explains what greater purpose they serve. Like I've heard a christian say that God had some mysterious greater good in mind when he allowed Jephtha to give his daughter as a burnt offering. Well dang, couldn't God tell us what his ingenious plan was instead of just simply leaving us in the dark? Couldn't he even inform us that even though he is a loving god and despises human sacrifice, Jephtha's deed or the death of David's son was needed to serve a greater purpose? The Bible does not even recognize a need for any explanation. It's like you're asking me to blindly accept that a serial killer has justifiable reasons for the crimes he's committed, just because I can't possibly know that he doesn't.

That is the first time I heard Jephtha gave his daughter as an actual sacrifice. The whole ending of the chapter seemed to indicated she was sent off to the temple. I'll have to reread it since it's not that long. Her being literally sacrificed would not make sense so I got nothing!:lol

However, the greater good isn't really a mystery and most deaths are explained including David's kid. I wasn't arguing the why as much as I'm arguing our feeling of it.

God almost always explains his purpose. He explained his plan in the very first book of the Bible, but most people are thinking he's simply punishing a snake. There's a verse in the Bible that basically says the light keeps getting brighter. What Moses, Abraham, & David knew is quite a bit different than what Paul or John knew. Paul had the benefit of Jesus' teachings and the entiriety of Jewish history. In short, he knew more thus could explain more. We do the same thing since we know more than Paul did since the Bible is completed in it's entiriety.

A human being should always know the intentions of another human being because we are on the same level. Therefore, there would never be a choosing sides with a serial killer. There's no true justifiable reason for a serial killer's ways. It's the opposite with God. We just may not like it.

[Now for the controversial statement of the day]

There is this thought that basic morality would not include killing which isn't true. It's not necessarily moral bankruptcy to kill someone. The reality is that since God does it all the time and people do it all the time and animals do it all the time, killing in and of itself, could be justified. I think of it as the Baby Hitler dilemna.

Biblically speaking, at the same time that God is love, per Scripture, we know that there is going to be a whole lot more death by God than one kid. This reconciles btw with the Old Testament God which tells me they're both the same. That's an image that's pretty hard to embrace too, but that's the way it's going to be.